POS0373 WHO ARE IN AND WHO ARE NOT? CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES ACCEPTING AN ONLINE SYSTEM FOR REMOTELY ENTERING PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES. EXPERIENCE FROM THE DANISH DANBIO REGISTRY
Authors: B. Glintborg, D. V. Jensen, L. Terslev, O. Hendricks, M. Østergaard, S. H. Rasmussen, M. Pfeiffer-Jensen, T. Adelsten, A. Colic, K. Danebod, M. Kildemand, A. G. Loft, H. L. Munk, J. K. Pedersen, R. Østgård, C. M. Sørensen, N. Steen Krogh, J. Nørgaard Agerbo, C. Ziegler, M. L. Hetland
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022)

Background Digital solutions for online monitoring of chronic diseases are increasingly implemented in health care, but not all patients might have access, skills, or interest in using them. Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgent need for remote consultations, an online website to enter patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from home (DANBIO-from-home, https://danbio.dk ) was implemented on May 15 th 2020 for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) followed in the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. Objectives To explore the use of DANBIO-from-home during the first 1½ year after launching, with focus on a) characteristics of patients who did versus who did not access the webpage, and b) impact of patient age on time to first entry. Methods DANBIO-from-home allows PROs to be entered remotely by computer, tablet, or smartphone after secure log-on. All patients followed in DANBIO were informed about this option by invitations sent through eBoks, a national infrastructure for electronic communication, available to 80-90% of Danish citizens. Patients were encouraged to access DANBIO-from-home before planned rheumatology consultations, or when participating in the voluntary questionnaire survey ‘You and your rheumatic disease during times with corona-virus’ (on three occasions: May 2020, Nov 2020, June 2021) (ref). Follow-up ended Dec 1 st 2021. Characteristics of patients who did/did not access DANBIO-from-home during follow-up are explored by multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted by clinical factors (gender/age-group/diagnosis/disease duration/use of biologics/HAQ/PASS). Time to first entry of PRO using DANBIO-from-home is presented as cumulative incidence curves by age group. Results Among 33,776 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases followed in DANBIO, 68% used DANBIO-from-home at least once during follow-up (Table 1). Patients who used the system were less frequently below 40 years or above 80 years old, more frequently biologically treated and had lower HAQ-score than patients who did not use it. Table 1. Data entry, DANBIO-from-home solution N=33,776 YES, 68% NO, 32% Gender, female 64 36 Gender, male 78 22 Age strata, yrs &lt; 40 62 38 40-60 73 27 61-80 72 28 &gt;80 39 61 Diagnosis RA 67 23 AxSpA 69 31 PsA 70 30 Biologic treatment, yes* 73 27 PASS, yes 71 29 Age, yrs, median (IQR) 62 (52-71) 65 (50-77) Time since diagnosis, yrs, median (IQR) 9 (5-16) 10 (5-17) HAQ, median (IQR) 0.5 (0.125-1.0) 0.625 (0.125-1.25) Row percentages unless otherwise shown * latest visit before March 2020 AxSpA: Axial spondyloarthritis, HAQ: health assessment questionnaire, PASS: patient acceptable symptom scale, PsA: psoriatic arthritis, RA: rheumatoid arthritis In logistic regression analyses, factors associated with DANBIO-from-home access were: female gender (odds ratio, OR 1.2 (1.1;1.3)), age group 40-60 (1.8 (1.6;2.0)) or 61-80 yrs (1.9 (1.7;2.19) and not age &gt;80 yrs (0.6 (0.5;0.7) with age &lt;40 as the reference), biologic treatment (1.4 (1.3;1.5)), higher HAQ (1.3 (0.3;1.4)), scoring PASS ‘no’ (1.1 (1.02;1.2)) (all p &lt;0.001), whereas disease duration and diagnosis had no impact. Time to first entry was longest in in patients &gt;80 yrs followed by the &lt;40 yrs group. For all age-groups, and most pronounced for age &lt;40 yrs, the use increased when invitations to questionnaire surveys were sent out. (Figure 1) Conclusion A web-based system for secure remote entry of PROs was well-received after a nationwide launch. Patient-related factors had a substantial impact on the use. Lower use in the elderly might indicate lack of technical skills or facilities, whereas low use in younger age groups, which improved over time, is likely driven by other factors. Further analyses are planned to explore if lack of use impacts treatment outcomes. References [1]Glintborg et al, Rheumatology. 2021 Oct 9;60:SI3-SI12 Disclosure of Interests Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Dorte Vendelbo Jensen: None declared, Lene Terslev Speakers bureau: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Janssen, Oliver Hendricks Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Simon Horskjær Rasmussen: None declared, Mogens Pfeiffer-Jensen: None declared, Thomas Adelsten: None declared, Ada Colic: None declared, Kamilla Danebod: None declared, Malene Kildemand: None declared, Anne Gitte Loft Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Heidi Lausten Munk: None declared, Jens Kristian Pedersen: None declared, René Østgård Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Christian Møller Sørensen: None declared, Niels Steen Krogh: None declared, Jette Nørgaard Agerbo: None declared, Connie Ziegler: None declared, Merete Lund Hetland Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celtrion, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopis, Sandoz